One Response to “The Da Vinci Code: A Response”

As always you titillate, provoke, and distract me from admittedly carnal pleasures. God love you; so long as you know yourself 🙂

This dating game of canonical, apocryphal and Gnostic literature of the 1st-4th centuries is a question of faith, and not science. Nearly every fact posited in this clever delivery can be adequately explained, if not refuted.

Controversial – barely – mainstream-on-the-sea of somewhere near the truth, perhaps: John Dominc Crossan, is honest enough to state: “You must decide your presuppositions about gospel traditions before reconstructing either the historical Jesus or earliest Christianity. Everyone must. Everyone does.” (The Birth of Christianity, p. 103)

Now, if you’ve sated your mad lust for YouTube clippings of people who treat a piece of fiction like the so-called “Da Vinci Code” as somehow an exponent of Gnostic exegesis, I recommend that you take a serious look at Elaine Pagel’s “Gnostic Paul.” Perhaps you have read it?. Maybe we could organize a symposium. I have a very odd (it bubbled a bit during the fermentation process…hissed and groaned), but appropriate Barbera from 2005 that longs for a proper feast with a worthy adversary 🙂 No hemlock, scout’s honor 😉